Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:41:03 +0200, alex_lycos <altamix@...>
> wrote:
>
>> Well.... there are several scholars which admit the structure of
>> Romanian is not the Latin one.
>
> Romanian is a typical Romance language. In its nominal morphology, it
> stands rather closer to Latin than any other modern Romance language,
> having preserved an oblique case (dative/genitive) and having
> reintroduced a vocative.
Why reintroduced? What makes you to think it every was lost?
Genitive/Dative has Slavis and Germanic too.
> The verbal morphology is standard Romance,
> with preservation of the Latin a, i, e and C-styems, a present,
> subjunctive, imperfect, sipmle perfect, pluperfect, perfect
> subjunctive (in Macedo-Romanian), imperative, gerundive, perfect
> participle, and a periphrastic perfect made with the verb "to be"
> The only thing setting Romanian apart is the periphrastic future,
> which is made with "to want" rather than "to have"
There was pointed before. This "voi" is not " to vant" from Latin but it
is supposed to be from slavic *volja. there is not future with "vreau".
There are the non latin constructions ( mine, cine, tine, etc.) there is
an another genitive ( supposed to have been made in a later time) and
there are several other morphological questions which cannot be
explained trough Latin.
>
>> For the phonology there are rules and
>> rules
>
> Your inability to comprehend and apply the rules does not alter the
> fact that Romanian historical phonology is quite straightforward
> Only a small number of simple rules is required to derive the Romanian
> from the Vulgar Latin forms. The rules for Romanian are I'd say an
> order of magnitude less complex than the rules we need to derive
> Modern French from Vulgar Latin
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
You know what? I said there are severals scholars which have an another
opinion.And I quoted a name of one , telling I stil havent read what he
wrote.
I am already sick of you allways hacking around me with "your
inability", "your ignorance", etc etc etc.
Do you mind is so hard to understand the given rules? Is not at all
hard. If one does not agree with some of them in your opinion "is a
ignorant".
If you are so good and have so very big interests into this language why
don't you try to find the another segment of the language, the one of
the "lost idiom"? Arghhh... let me alone with that kind of interventions
Miguel. Please resume just on linguistic/historic aspects and it should
be ok. If I make an assumption that "x" > "y" you can say very simple "
this is wrong and you show why." Everyone will understand it. Is the
thirth time when you mess around with the words on me and it should be
enough.I am not a very well christ , just for our info.
Of course see every one the direct corespondences where the rom. words
have the best counterpart or the same form as in Latin.
But in the same manner is to seen the semantic shift and the forced way
to put some of them in the Latin where there is no Latin at all.I have
nothing against of what is Latin but I have a lot when it is not from
Latin but it is tryed to make it Latin.It should be very nice to take
care a bit of your words and to do not attack always the person. Atack
please the idea in the given context, that should a scholar do. And when
you speak about this latanisation of the language you have to keep in
mind how much of the body, family, simply life denominations are in
Romanian, denominations which are not of Latin or Slavic origin. I try
to find out what about and in such searching it _is normal_ to put under
the question even the well established things.